AKBAR ~ THE GREAT OR AKBAR THE ISLAMIC BASTARD OF
15 views
Skip to first unread message
ravi
Jul 7, 2009, 12:45:18 AM7/7/09
to Indian History
FOR MUSLIM APPEASEMENT, Part 5C
By Dr Radhasyam Brahmachari
http://www.faithfreedom.org/2009/06/29/distortion-of-indian-history-f...
What Akbar really was:
When the Part 5A of the current series of articles DISTORTION OF
INDIAN HISTORY FOR MUSLIM APPEASEMENT, was posted on the FFI, a reader
commented, “Historians site two historic rulers of India as ‘the
great’. One is Buddhist Asoka. The next is Muslim Akbar. The
subcontinent has been the abode of Hindus throughout history, but why
has there not been a single Hindu ruler who could earn the honorific
‘The great’? Why couldn’t Hinduism produce one? What is wrong with
Hinduism?” In this context, I would request the reader to note that
Hindus do not write Holy Vedas, Holy Upanishads or Holy Bhagavadgita
and so on, because the Hindu religious scriptures are really holy.
In a similar manner, almost all the Hindu kings were great and hence
it is unnecessary to tag them as great. We should quote the comment of
another reader, in this regard. He writes, “Unfortunately the Indian
History was written by the British colonialists and they wanted to
show that British Empire was the best thing for India and after
independence Leftist took over. In fact, there were innumerable great
Hindu kings. … Alexander although was able to defeat Porus, a Hindu
king, but the fight was so frightening that his soldiers revolted for
any further attack on India and thus he started moving backward from
there to Greek.” In this context, it should be said that Alexander was
badly defeated by King Porus at the Battle of the Hydaspes River.
Particularly, the Greek army failed completely to defend the attack by
trained elephants of Porus. Moreover, Alexander suffered a mortal
wound in that battle which caused his death at Babylon . The Hollywood
film Alexander, directed by Oliver Stone, confirms this fact.
However, it should also be mentioned that the history of India , which
we read in the history books, has been written according to the
guidelines set by the British occupiers and those British rulers were
Hindu bashers. But somehow or rather, they could not ignore the
greatness of Emperor Ashok. It is to be noted here that the so called
secular historians of India try to project Akbar even greater than
Emperor Ashok. While commenting on this aspect, V A Smith writes,
“Akbar would have laughed at the remorse felt by Ashok for the
miseries caused by the conquest of Kalinga, and would have utterly
condemned his great predecessor’s decision to abstain from all further
wars of aggression.” [1]
We should quote here the comment of another author regarding the
greatness of Akbar. He writes, “The personality and nature of Akbar
has been nicely summed up by the Editor of Father Monserrate’s
Commentarius. The editor’s introduction states, “In the long line of
Indian sovereigns, the towering personalities of Ashoka and Akbar
(because of his dread) stand high above the rest… Akbar’s greed for
conquest and glory and his lack of sincerity form a marked contrast to
Ashoka’s paternal rule, genuine self-control and spiritual ambition.
Akbar’s wars were those of a true descendent of Timur, and had all the
gruesome associations which this fact implies. … His character with
its mixture of ambition and cunning has now been laid bare. He has
been rightly compared to a pike in a pond preying upon his weaker
neighbours.” [2] He also writes, “With his treacherous nature and the
unlimited power than he wielded over a vast region qualifies him to be
one of the foremost tyrants and sadists in India ’s history, or
perhaps, even world history. He was no less cruel a tyrant than any of
his ancestors.” [2]
The so called secular historians of India also assert that, since
Akbar was born and died in India , he must be accepted as an Indian
monarch. In this context, V A Smith writes, “Akbar was a foreigner in
India . He had not a drop of Indian blood in his veins.” [3] To
elaborate this point, P N Oak writes, “Akbar was a direct descendant
in the 7th generation on his father’s side from Tamerlain (or Taimur)
and on the mother’s side from Chengiz Khan.” [4] He also writes,
“Intemperance was the besetting sin of the Timuroid royal family, as
it was of many other ruling Muslim houses. …Babur was an elegant
toper. … Humayun made himself stupid with opium. …Akbar permitted
himself the practice of both vices.” [5]
Whosoever has studied even a bit of Islam, has seen that the concepts
like nationality, nationalism, patriotism or love for the motherland
etc are absent in Islam. On the contrary, Islam imposes the concept of
Millat and Kufr and divides the entire humanity into two groups,
namely Momems (or Muslims) and Kafirs. The aggregate of all the
Muslims is called Islamic Umma. As a result, Muslims have no loyalty
to the country where they live. They have loyalty to the Islamic Umma
and to the Islamic holy places, Mecca and Medina .. From this view
point, even the converted Muslims, who live in India , are not
Indians. They have no loyalty to India and to its history and culture,
and that is the reason, they refuse to sing India ’s National Song
“Vande Mataram” (I worship my motherland). They are loyal to Allah,
loyal to Islam and Islamic Umma, and loyal to Mecca and Medina . They
can be called resident non-Indians but not Indians. So it is not
difficult to understand that Akbar’s Indian-ness is a myth.
Another reader has expressed a completely different view. He writes,
“Why would historians paint Akbar good to please Muslims doesn’t make
sense. Because, Akbar was not a Muslim himself. He was the follower of
Din e Elahi, a religion founded by himself which had elements of
Hinduism and Islam in it. Just because he had a Muslim name doesn’t
make him Muslim.” In this context, it should be said that Akbar
preached his religion at the fag end of his life and hence through
most of his life, he was a Muslim. If a robber commits robbery
throughout his life and abandons it just before his death, should he
be called a robber or an innocent gentleman. Despite his preaching of
his new religion Din-i-Ilahi, many believe that “Akbar was born a
muslim, lived like a muslim and died as a muslim; that too a very
fanatic one.” [2]
At this point, it should be made clear that, Akbar preached his new
religion Din-i-Ilahi not out of his respect for other religion, but
for his personal glorification. He wanted to be a prophet, like
Muhammad, by inventing and floating this new religion. “He understood
the trick of Muhammad and wanted to be another Muhammad with a new
religion din-i-Ilahi”, says a commentator. In this context, we should
mention another aspect of Akbar’s life that reflects his intense
desire to project himself as a religious personality. Xavier, a
Jesuit in Akbar’s court, gives a typical instance of Akbar’s perfidy
in making people drink water in which his feet had been washed. [2]
While commenting on this aspect, V A Smith writes, “Xavier writes,
Akbar posed “as a Prophet, wishing it to be understood that he works
miracles through healing the sick by means of the water in which he
washed the feet.” [6]
To lure the Hindus to his new religion, he proposed to repeal Jejya
(Poll Tax) and pilgrimage tax and ban of cow slaughter. But they were
never implemented. So the author of Akbar: The Great Tyrannical
Monarch writes, “The infamous Jiziya tax, which is special tax
exaction from the Hindus, was never abolished by Akbar. Time and time
again different people had approached seeking exemption from Jiziya.
Everytime the exemption was ostensibly issued, but never was actually
implemented.” [2]
Many believe that Akbar, who might be a lecher and a diabolic killer,
not an iconoclast and he did not demolish Hindu temples. As a matter
of fact, Akbar was mainly concerned with his personal glorification,
money and women and hence might not have found much time to
concentrate on the matter of desecrating Hindu temples and breaking
Hindu Idols.
However, Akbar’s hands were not clean from this sin. While commenting
on this aspect of Akbar , Col Tod writes, “Not only that he forcibly
annihilated innumerable humans, he also had no respect for temples and
deities and willingly indulged in destruction of such places of
worship. ).” [7] “Throughout Akbar’s reign, temples used to razed to
the ground or misappropriated as mosques and cows were slaughtered in
them, as happened in the battle at Nagarkot. No symbol of Hindu origin
and design was spared from the iconoclastic wrath of Akbar.” [2]
While commenting on this aspect of Akbar, V A Smith writes, “The holy
Hindu cities of Prayag and Banaras , were plundered by Akbar because
their residents were rash enough to close their gates! No wonder
Prayag of today has no ancient monuments — whatever remain are a
rubble! It is rather obvious that Akbar had no respect and reverence
for cities considered holy by Hindus, let alone esteem for human life
and property. Also, it is evident from this instance that Akbar’s
subjects were horrified and scared upon the arrival of their king into
their city. If at all Akbar was so magnanimous, why then did not the
people come forward and greet him?” [8]
Monserrate, a contemporary of Akbar, writes, “The religious zeal of
the Musalmans has destroyed all the idol temples which used to be
numerous. In place of Hindu temples, countless tombs and little
shrines of wicked and worthless Musalmans have been erected in which
these men are worshipped with vain superstition as though they were
saints. Not only did the muslims destroy the idols, but usurped the
existing temples and converted them into tombs of insignificant
people.”[9]
He further continues, “Akbar has neither any love or compassion for
Hindus as is apparent from the above examples.. Hindus were openly
despised and contemptously treated under Akbar’s fanatical rule as
under any other rule. Akbar was only one of the many links of the
despotic and cruel Moghal rule in India , and enforced the tradition
of his forefathers with sincerity and equal ruthlessness.”[9]
Akbar’s shameless court flatterers, to please their master, have
painted him as the most handsome man on the earth and our secular and
Marxist historians are also following those flatterers. But Akbar’s
physique was anything but handsome. Historian V A Smith, in this
regard, writes, “Akbar (in mid-life) was a man of moderate stature,
perhaps 5’7” in height, broad-chested, narrow waisted and long armed.
His legs were somewhat bowed inward and when walking he slightly
dragged the left leg, as if he were lame. His head drooped a little
toward the right shoulder. … The nose was rather short, with a bony
prominence in the middle and nostrils dilated as if with anger. …and
his complexion was dark.” [10] So a commentator writes, “Not only was
this guy a barbarian, he was also very ugly.”
Akbar’s Lechery:
It has been said earlier that Akbar was mainly concerned with personal
glory, money and women and his wars and conquests were aimed to
achieve these three goals. So the author of Akbar; the great
tyrannical monarch, writes, “Akbar possessed a inordinate lust for
women, just like his ancestors and predecessors. One of Akbar’s
motives during his wars of aggression against various rulers was to
appropriate their women, daughters and sisters.” [2]
Some historians try to project that Akbar practiced monogamy
throughout his life. While commenting on this aspect, V A Smith
writes, “That Akbar remained monogamous throughout his life is indeed
history falsified myth.” [11] He also writes “Akbar, throughout his
life, allowed himself ample latitude in the matter of wives and
concubines! … Akbar had introduced a whole host of Hindu women, the
daughters of eminent Hindu Rajahs, into his harem.” [12] Historian Dr
A L Srivastava has given a detail account in his Akbar the Great, how
Akbar coerced the rulers of Jaipur for sending his daughters to
Akbar’s harem [2]
Historian J M Shelat writes,”After the “Jauhar” that followed the
killing of Rani Durgawati, the two women left alive, Kamalavati
(sister of Rani Durgawati) and the daughter of the Raja of Purangad
(daughter-in-law of the deceased queen) were sent to Agra to enter
Akbar’s harem.” [13] “It should also be observed that admittance into
Akbar’s harem was available mainly to virgins and others’ were
“disqualified”. In spite of such disgusting and lewd personal affairs,
inducting women of abducted or killed Hindu warriors into his harem as
slaves and prostitutes; it is bewildering that Akbar is hailed as a
righteous and noble emperor.” [2]
To describe Akbar’s uxorious character, V A Smith writes, “Abul Fazl
never tires of repeating that Akbar during his early years remained
‘behind the veil’. What he means thereby is that Akbar used to spend
most of his time in his harem.” [14] Akbar habitually drank hard and
used to have, for the most of the day, licentous relations with women
of his harem. There is no doubt that, both drinking and engaging in
debauched sexual activities was inherited by Akbar from his Tartar
ancestors. [2]
To describe Akbar’s infinite lewdness, Abul Fazl in his Ain-i-Akbari,
writes, “His majesty has established a wine shop near the palace … The
prostitutes of the realm collected at the shop could scarcely be
counted, so large was their number .. The dancing girls used to be
taken home by the courtiers. If any well known courtier wanted to have
a virgin they should first have His Majesty’s [Akbar's]
permission.” [15] He also writes that, His Majesty [Akbar] himself
used to call these prostitutes and ask them who had deprived them of
their virginity? “This was the state of affairs during Akbar’s rule,
where alcoholism, sodomy, prostitution and murderous assaults were
permitted by the king himself. The conditions of the civic life during
Akbar’s life is shocking!” [16]
“Whole of India was reduced to a brothel during the Moghal rule and
Akbar, one of the Emperors, is being glorified as one of the patrons
of the vast brothel. The above instances may suffice to convince the
impartial reader that Akbar’s whole career was a saga of uninhibited
licentiousness backed by the royal brute.” [2] Who were these so
called prostitutes? Wherefrom did a whole army of prostitutes suddenly
descend on Akbar’s realm, like swarm of locusts? “The answer is that
these ever-increasing prostitutes were none other than decent Hindu
women whose homes were daily raided and plundered and their men-folk
were either massacred or converted, were haplessly left to fend for
themselves and exposed to the mercy of the sex hungry Mussalman
courtiers.” [16]
Akbar had made it a pernicious custom to demand choicest women from
the household of vanquished foes. Thus all the women in territories
conquered by Akbar, whether a commoner, or of noble or royal descend,
were at Akbar’s mercy. According to this custom, all the Rajput kings
who had submitted to Akbar, were forced to sent their daughters or
sisters to Akbar’s harem, where they had to live as sex-slaves. Raja
Man Singh of Jaipur had to offer his sister to Akbar. Akbar’s cruelty
towards the Hindu women, kidnapped and shut up in his harem, were
staggering and his much vaunted marriages, said to have been
contracted for communal integration and harmony, were nothing but
outrageous kidnappings brought about with the force of arms. It has
been mentioned earlier, how the Rajput women of the Chittor Fort
sacrificed their lives in Jauhar to avoid this disgrace and
humiliation.
Only in one occasion, the said custom was slackened and when the
Treaty of Ranathambhor between Akbar and the chiefs of Bundi (who
owned the fort) was made, the first condition of the said treaty read
that the chiefs of Bundi be exempt from the custom, degrading to a
Rajputs, of sending a ‘bride’ to the royal harem. To narrate the
incident, V A Smith writes, “A treaty was drawn up on the spot, and
mediated by the prince of Amber {Jaipur], which presents a good
picture of Hindu feeling. [The terms were] (1) that the chiefs of
Bundi should be exempted from that custom, degrading to a Rajput, of
sending a dola [bride] to the royal harem; (2) exemption from jizya or
poll-tax; (3) that the chiefs of Bundi should not be compelled to
cross the Attock; (4) that the vassals of Bundi should be exempted
from the obligation of sending their wives or female relatives ‘to
hold a stall in the Mina bazaar’ at the palace, on the festival of
Nauroza [New Year’s Day] and so on. [17]
In the middle of Jan 1562, Akbar made a pilgrimage to the tomb of
Khwaja Mainuddin Chisti of Ajmir. On the way, Raja Bihari Mal of Amber
entered a peace treaty with Akbar and, according to the said custom,
Raja Bihari Mal offered him the hand of his daughter in marriage to
Akbar. However, the princess later on became the mother of emperor
Jahangir.
Even the Muslim women were not safe from Akbar’s lust. In 1564, Akbar
compelled one Shaikh of Delhi to divorce his wife in his favour. [18]
Akbar had an eye on Bairam Khan’s wife and married her soon after
Bairam Khan was murdered. Akbar did not hesitate to have caused this
violent and tragic end of his erstwhile guardian for the satiation of
his lust. In this context, it should also be mentioned that, in 1558,
when Bairam was more than 50, he married his 19 year old cousin Salima
begam. Meanwhile, Bairam was sacked and Akbar asked him to go to Mecca
and on his way to Mecca, Bairam Khan was assassinated on 31st January,
1561, at Patan by some Afghans. Akbar was then 19 year old and hence
Akbar and Salima Begam were of the same age. [19] This is a fine
example of fight between two lechers, just like fighting of dogs in
their mating season.
In this way Akbar, with the army of forcefully abducted women, created
a harem of 5000 inmates, in the capital city of Agra . While
commenting on it, V A Smith writes, “The imperial harem constituted a
town in itself. No less than 5000 women dwelt within the walls, and
each of them had a separate apartment. The maintenance and control of
such a multitude of women necessitated a carefully devised system of
internal administration and the organization of adequate arrangements
for discipline. The inmates were divided into sections, each under a
female commandant (daroga), and due provision was made for the supply
from the ranks of clerks to keep the accounts. A strict method of
check was applied to the expenditure, which was on a large
scale.” [20] Smith further continues, “The inside of the enclosure was
protected by armed female guards. Eunuchs watched on the outside of
it, and beyond them again were companies of faithful Rajputs, while
troops of other classes posted at a greater distance gave further
security.” [20]
Though, following Abul Fazl, Smith wrote above that ‘each of the
inmates of the harem were provided with a separate apartment’, but in
Agra there is not even a single building with 5000 separate rooms. So,
the above conclusion is a lie. One can, therefore, easily understand
in what wretched condition these unfortunate women were condemned to
live. Itmad-ud-daula, the father-in-law of Jehangir, has thrown some
light on some other features of the inmates of this harem. If someone
had given birth to a female child, she was saved because in future she
could be used as a sex-slave. But, if anyone happened to give birth to
a male child, he used to be murdered or blinded as in future he could
never pose a threat to the throne. It may be mentioned here that,
another lecher Ferozshah Tughloq, used to get the private part of the
women of his harem sewed, to be sure that they were not having sex
with other man.
However, Akbar’s lechery was not confined to his harem of 5000 women
and P N Oak, while commenting on this matter, writes, “Despite an
exclusive harem of 5,000 women, and all the virgin prostitutes of the
realm whose virginity, as Abul Fazl tells us, was at Akbar’s exclusive
royal command and could not be violated without special permission by
any courtier, the honour of the wives of noblemen and courtiers was
itself always subject to Akbar’s sexy pleasure.” [21] Akbar did not
spare even the wives of the ministers and nobles of his court, if they
happened to draw attention of Akbar’s lust.
To highlight this point, Abul Fazl writes, “Whenever Begams or wives
of nobles, or other women of chaste character, desire to be presented,
they first notify their wish to the servants of the seraglio and wait
for reply. From thence they send their requests to the officers of the
palace after which those who are eligible (sic) are permitted to enter
the harem. Some women of rank obtained permission to remain there for
a whole month.” [2] The above passage is a clear admission that Akbar
used to compel wives of courtiers and noblemen, toward whom he felt
sufficiently attracted to remain within his harem at least for a month
at a time.
To expose another feature of Akbar’s lechery, V A Smith writes,
“Grimon’s statement that Akbar had confined himself to one wife and
distributed his other consorts among the courtiers is not directly
confirmed from other sources.” [22] “This adds a new dimension to
Akbar’s lechery because it reveals how women were considered as mere
chattel to be freely exchanged among Akbar and his courtiers in a
continuous round of sex-traffic.” [19] “Then there was the notorious
institution of Meena Bazar, according to which on New Year’s Day, the
women of all households had to be paraded before Akbar for his
choosing.” [19]
It has been mentioned earlier that Muhammad Ghori, Qutb-ud-din and
Iltutmish were sodomites. It has also been mentioned that Babur,
Akbar’s grandfather, has given a lengthy description of this sodomic
infatuation for a male sweetheart in hia auto-biography. Humayun was
no different. Therefore, sodomy was also a precious service of Akbar’s
own family… Though, perhaps, Akbar did not engage in sodomy, but many
believe that he allowed” it to be practiced by his servants, courtiers
and sycophats. Abul Fazal in Ain-e-Akbari provides accounts of some
such acts which are too disgusting to even mention. Such perverse
gratification was prevalent during the entire Mughal rule, including
Akbar’s times.
References:
[1] V. A. Smith, Akbar the Great Mogul, Oxford Clarendon Press, 32..
[2] Akbar The Great A Tyrannical Monarch –
http://www.hindunet.org/hindu_history/modern/akbar_ppg.html
[3] V. A. Smith, Akbar the Great Mogul, ibid, 7..
[4] P N Oak, Islamic Havoc in Indian History, Published by A Ghosh,
298.
[5] P N Oak, Islamic Havoc in Indian History, ibid, 294.
[6] V. A. Smith, Akbar the Great Mogul, ibid, 189.
[7] J Todd, Annals and Antiquities of Rajasthan, 2 volumes, Routledge
and Kegan Paul Ltd., London , 1957, II, 259.
[8] V. A. Smith, Akbar the Great Mogul, ibid, 58.
[9] S J Monserrate, “The Commentary,” translated from original Latin
by J.S. Hoyland, annotated by S.Banerjee, Humphrey Milford, Oxford
Univ. Press, London , (1922),.27.
[10] V. A. Smith, Akbar the Great Mogul, ibid, 242.
[11] V. A. Smith, Akbar the Great Mogul, ibid, 47.
[12] V. A. Smith, Akbar the Great Mogul, ibid, 212..
[13] J M Shelat, “Akbar,” Bharatiya Vidya Bhawan, 1964, Bombay . , 90.
[14] V. A. Smith, Akbar the Great Mogul, ibid, 31.
[15] Blochmann, H., “Ain-e-Akbari,” translation of Abul Fazal’s
Persian text, 2nd Edition, Bibliotheca Indica Series, published by
the Royal Asiatic Society of Bengal., 276.
[16] P N Oak, Islamic Havoc in Indian History, ibid, 300.
[17] V. A. Smith, Akbar the Great Mogul, ibid, 99.
[18] V. A. Smith, Akbar the Great Mogul, ibid, 47.
[19] P N Oak, Islamic Havoc in Indian History, ibid, 301.
[20] V. A. Smith, Akbar the Great Mogul, ibid, 359.
[21] P N Oak, Islamic Havoc in Indian History, ibid, 300.
[22] V. A. Smith, Akbar the Great Mogul, ibid, 185.
By Dr Radhasyam Brahmachari
http://www.faithfreedom.org/2009/06/29/distortion-of-indian-history-f...
What Akbar really was:
When the Part 5A of the current series of articles DISTORTION OF
INDIAN HISTORY FOR MUSLIM APPEASEMENT, was posted on the FFI, a reader
commented, “Historians site two historic rulers of India as ‘the
great’. One is Buddhist Asoka. The next is Muslim Akbar. The
subcontinent has been the abode of Hindus throughout history, but why
has there not been a single Hindu ruler who could earn the honorific
‘The great’? Why couldn’t Hinduism produce one? What is wrong with
Hinduism?” In this context, I would request the reader to note that
Hindus do not write Holy Vedas, Holy Upanishads or Holy Bhagavadgita
and so on, because the Hindu religious scriptures are really holy.
In a similar manner, almost all the Hindu kings were great and hence
it is unnecessary to tag them as great. We should quote the comment of
another reader, in this regard. He writes, “Unfortunately the Indian
History was written by the British colonialists and they wanted to
show that British Empire was the best thing for India and after
independence Leftist took over. In fact, there were innumerable great
Hindu kings. … Alexander although was able to defeat Porus, a Hindu
king, but the fight was so frightening that his soldiers revolted for
any further attack on India and thus he started moving backward from
there to Greek.” In this context, it should be said that Alexander was
badly defeated by King Porus at the Battle of the Hydaspes River.
Particularly, the Greek army failed completely to defend the attack by
trained elephants of Porus. Moreover, Alexander suffered a mortal
wound in that battle which caused his death at Babylon . The Hollywood
film Alexander, directed by Oliver Stone, confirms this fact.
However, it should also be mentioned that the history of India , which
we read in the history books, has been written according to the
guidelines set by the British occupiers and those British rulers were
Hindu bashers. But somehow or rather, they could not ignore the
greatness of Emperor Ashok. It is to be noted here that the so called
secular historians of India try to project Akbar even greater than
Emperor Ashok. While commenting on this aspect, V A Smith writes,
“Akbar would have laughed at the remorse felt by Ashok for the
miseries caused by the conquest of Kalinga, and would have utterly
condemned his great predecessor’s decision to abstain from all further
wars of aggression.” [1]
We should quote here the comment of another author regarding the
greatness of Akbar. He writes, “The personality and nature of Akbar
has been nicely summed up by the Editor of Father Monserrate’s
Commentarius. The editor’s introduction states, “In the long line of
Indian sovereigns, the towering personalities of Ashoka and Akbar
(because of his dread) stand high above the rest… Akbar’s greed for
conquest and glory and his lack of sincerity form a marked contrast to
Ashoka’s paternal rule, genuine self-control and spiritual ambition.
Akbar’s wars were those of a true descendent of Timur, and had all the
gruesome associations which this fact implies. … His character with
its mixture of ambition and cunning has now been laid bare. He has
been rightly compared to a pike in a pond preying upon his weaker
neighbours.” [2] He also writes, “With his treacherous nature and the
unlimited power than he wielded over a vast region qualifies him to be
one of the foremost tyrants and sadists in India ’s history, or
perhaps, even world history. He was no less cruel a tyrant than any of
his ancestors.” [2]
The so called secular historians of India also assert that, since
Akbar was born and died in India , he must be accepted as an Indian
monarch. In this context, V A Smith writes, “Akbar was a foreigner in
India . He had not a drop of Indian blood in his veins.” [3] To
elaborate this point, P N Oak writes, “Akbar was a direct descendant
in the 7th generation on his father’s side from Tamerlain (or Taimur)
and on the mother’s side from Chengiz Khan.” [4] He also writes,
“Intemperance was the besetting sin of the Timuroid royal family, as
it was of many other ruling Muslim houses. …Babur was an elegant
toper. … Humayun made himself stupid with opium. …Akbar permitted
himself the practice of both vices.” [5]
Whosoever has studied even a bit of Islam, has seen that the concepts
like nationality, nationalism, patriotism or love for the motherland
etc are absent in Islam. On the contrary, Islam imposes the concept of
Millat and Kufr and divides the entire humanity into two groups,
namely Momems (or Muslims) and Kafirs. The aggregate of all the
Muslims is called Islamic Umma. As a result, Muslims have no loyalty
to the country where they live. They have loyalty to the Islamic Umma
and to the Islamic holy places, Mecca and Medina .. From this view
point, even the converted Muslims, who live in India , are not
Indians. They have no loyalty to India and to its history and culture,
and that is the reason, they refuse to sing India ’s National Song
“Vande Mataram” (I worship my motherland). They are loyal to Allah,
loyal to Islam and Islamic Umma, and loyal to Mecca and Medina . They
can be called resident non-Indians but not Indians. So it is not
difficult to understand that Akbar’s Indian-ness is a myth.
Another reader has expressed a completely different view. He writes,
“Why would historians paint Akbar good to please Muslims doesn’t make
sense. Because, Akbar was not a Muslim himself. He was the follower of
Din e Elahi, a religion founded by himself which had elements of
Hinduism and Islam in it. Just because he had a Muslim name doesn’t
make him Muslim.” In this context, it should be said that Akbar
preached his religion at the fag end of his life and hence through
most of his life, he was a Muslim. If a robber commits robbery
throughout his life and abandons it just before his death, should he
be called a robber or an innocent gentleman. Despite his preaching of
his new religion Din-i-Ilahi, many believe that “Akbar was born a
muslim, lived like a muslim and died as a muslim; that too a very
fanatic one.” [2]
At this point, it should be made clear that, Akbar preached his new
religion Din-i-Ilahi not out of his respect for other religion, but
for his personal glorification. He wanted to be a prophet, like
Muhammad, by inventing and floating this new religion. “He understood
the trick of Muhammad and wanted to be another Muhammad with a new
religion din-i-Ilahi”, says a commentator. In this context, we should
mention another aspect of Akbar’s life that reflects his intense
desire to project himself as a religious personality. Xavier, a
Jesuit in Akbar’s court, gives a typical instance of Akbar’s perfidy
in making people drink water in which his feet had been washed. [2]
While commenting on this aspect, V A Smith writes, “Xavier writes,
Akbar posed “as a Prophet, wishing it to be understood that he works
miracles through healing the sick by means of the water in which he
washed the feet.” [6]
To lure the Hindus to his new religion, he proposed to repeal Jejya
(Poll Tax) and pilgrimage tax and ban of cow slaughter. But they were
never implemented. So the author of Akbar: The Great Tyrannical
Monarch writes, “The infamous Jiziya tax, which is special tax
exaction from the Hindus, was never abolished by Akbar. Time and time
again different people had approached seeking exemption from Jiziya.
Everytime the exemption was ostensibly issued, but never was actually
implemented.” [2]
Many believe that Akbar, who might be a lecher and a diabolic killer,
not an iconoclast and he did not demolish Hindu temples. As a matter
of fact, Akbar was mainly concerned with his personal glorification,
money and women and hence might not have found much time to
concentrate on the matter of desecrating Hindu temples and breaking
Hindu Idols.
However, Akbar’s hands were not clean from this sin. While commenting
on this aspect of Akbar , Col Tod writes, “Not only that he forcibly
annihilated innumerable humans, he also had no respect for temples and
deities and willingly indulged in destruction of such places of
worship. ).” [7] “Throughout Akbar’s reign, temples used to razed to
the ground or misappropriated as mosques and cows were slaughtered in
them, as happened in the battle at Nagarkot. No symbol of Hindu origin
and design was spared from the iconoclastic wrath of Akbar.” [2]
While commenting on this aspect of Akbar, V A Smith writes, “The holy
Hindu cities of Prayag and Banaras , were plundered by Akbar because
their residents were rash enough to close their gates! No wonder
Prayag of today has no ancient monuments — whatever remain are a
rubble! It is rather obvious that Akbar had no respect and reverence
for cities considered holy by Hindus, let alone esteem for human life
and property. Also, it is evident from this instance that Akbar’s
subjects were horrified and scared upon the arrival of their king into
their city. If at all Akbar was so magnanimous, why then did not the
people come forward and greet him?” [8]
Monserrate, a contemporary of Akbar, writes, “The religious zeal of
the Musalmans has destroyed all the idol temples which used to be
numerous. In place of Hindu temples, countless tombs and little
shrines of wicked and worthless Musalmans have been erected in which
these men are worshipped with vain superstition as though they were
saints. Not only did the muslims destroy the idols, but usurped the
existing temples and converted them into tombs of insignificant
people.”[9]
He further continues, “Akbar has neither any love or compassion for
Hindus as is apparent from the above examples.. Hindus were openly
despised and contemptously treated under Akbar’s fanatical rule as
under any other rule. Akbar was only one of the many links of the
despotic and cruel Moghal rule in India , and enforced the tradition
of his forefathers with sincerity and equal ruthlessness.”[9]
Akbar’s shameless court flatterers, to please their master, have
painted him as the most handsome man on the earth and our secular and
Marxist historians are also following those flatterers. But Akbar’s
physique was anything but handsome. Historian V A Smith, in this
regard, writes, “Akbar (in mid-life) was a man of moderate stature,
perhaps 5’7” in height, broad-chested, narrow waisted and long armed.
His legs were somewhat bowed inward and when walking he slightly
dragged the left leg, as if he were lame. His head drooped a little
toward the right shoulder. … The nose was rather short, with a bony
prominence in the middle and nostrils dilated as if with anger. …and
his complexion was dark.” [10] So a commentator writes, “Not only was
this guy a barbarian, he was also very ugly.”
Akbar’s Lechery:
It has been said earlier that Akbar was mainly concerned with personal
glory, money and women and his wars and conquests were aimed to
achieve these three goals. So the author of Akbar; the great
tyrannical monarch, writes, “Akbar possessed a inordinate lust for
women, just like his ancestors and predecessors. One of Akbar’s
motives during his wars of aggression against various rulers was to
appropriate their women, daughters and sisters.” [2]
Some historians try to project that Akbar practiced monogamy
throughout his life. While commenting on this aspect, V A Smith
writes, “That Akbar remained monogamous throughout his life is indeed
history falsified myth.” [11] He also writes “Akbar, throughout his
life, allowed himself ample latitude in the matter of wives and
concubines! … Akbar had introduced a whole host of Hindu women, the
daughters of eminent Hindu Rajahs, into his harem.” [12] Historian Dr
A L Srivastava has given a detail account in his Akbar the Great, how
Akbar coerced the rulers of Jaipur for sending his daughters to
Akbar’s harem [2]
Historian J M Shelat writes,”After the “Jauhar” that followed the
killing of Rani Durgawati, the two women left alive, Kamalavati
(sister of Rani Durgawati) and the daughter of the Raja of Purangad
(daughter-in-law of the deceased queen) were sent to Agra to enter
Akbar’s harem.” [13] “It should also be observed that admittance into
Akbar’s harem was available mainly to virgins and others’ were
“disqualified”. In spite of such disgusting and lewd personal affairs,
inducting women of abducted or killed Hindu warriors into his harem as
slaves and prostitutes; it is bewildering that Akbar is hailed as a
righteous and noble emperor.” [2]
To describe Akbar’s uxorious character, V A Smith writes, “Abul Fazl
never tires of repeating that Akbar during his early years remained
‘behind the veil’. What he means thereby is that Akbar used to spend
most of his time in his harem.” [14] Akbar habitually drank hard and
used to have, for the most of the day, licentous relations with women
of his harem. There is no doubt that, both drinking and engaging in
debauched sexual activities was inherited by Akbar from his Tartar
ancestors. [2]
To describe Akbar’s infinite lewdness, Abul Fazl in his Ain-i-Akbari,
writes, “His majesty has established a wine shop near the palace … The
prostitutes of the realm collected at the shop could scarcely be
counted, so large was their number .. The dancing girls used to be
taken home by the courtiers. If any well known courtier wanted to have
a virgin they should first have His Majesty’s [Akbar's]
permission.” [15] He also writes that, His Majesty [Akbar] himself
used to call these prostitutes and ask them who had deprived them of
their virginity? “This was the state of affairs during Akbar’s rule,
where alcoholism, sodomy, prostitution and murderous assaults were
permitted by the king himself. The conditions of the civic life during
Akbar’s life is shocking!” [16]
“Whole of India was reduced to a brothel during the Moghal rule and
Akbar, one of the Emperors, is being glorified as one of the patrons
of the vast brothel. The above instances may suffice to convince the
impartial reader that Akbar’s whole career was a saga of uninhibited
licentiousness backed by the royal brute.” [2] Who were these so
called prostitutes? Wherefrom did a whole army of prostitutes suddenly
descend on Akbar’s realm, like swarm of locusts? “The answer is that
these ever-increasing prostitutes were none other than decent Hindu
women whose homes were daily raided and plundered and their men-folk
were either massacred or converted, were haplessly left to fend for
themselves and exposed to the mercy of the sex hungry Mussalman
courtiers.” [16]
Akbar had made it a pernicious custom to demand choicest women from
the household of vanquished foes. Thus all the women in territories
conquered by Akbar, whether a commoner, or of noble or royal descend,
were at Akbar’s mercy. According to this custom, all the Rajput kings
who had submitted to Akbar, were forced to sent their daughters or
sisters to Akbar’s harem, where they had to live as sex-slaves. Raja
Man Singh of Jaipur had to offer his sister to Akbar. Akbar’s cruelty
towards the Hindu women, kidnapped and shut up in his harem, were
staggering and his much vaunted marriages, said to have been
contracted for communal integration and harmony, were nothing but
outrageous kidnappings brought about with the force of arms. It has
been mentioned earlier, how the Rajput women of the Chittor Fort
sacrificed their lives in Jauhar to avoid this disgrace and
humiliation.
Only in one occasion, the said custom was slackened and when the
Treaty of Ranathambhor between Akbar and the chiefs of Bundi (who
owned the fort) was made, the first condition of the said treaty read
that the chiefs of Bundi be exempt from the custom, degrading to a
Rajputs, of sending a ‘bride’ to the royal harem. To narrate the
incident, V A Smith writes, “A treaty was drawn up on the spot, and
mediated by the prince of Amber {Jaipur], which presents a good
picture of Hindu feeling. [The terms were] (1) that the chiefs of
Bundi should be exempted from that custom, degrading to a Rajput, of
sending a dola [bride] to the royal harem; (2) exemption from jizya or
poll-tax; (3) that the chiefs of Bundi should not be compelled to
cross the Attock; (4) that the vassals of Bundi should be exempted
from the obligation of sending their wives or female relatives ‘to
hold a stall in the Mina bazaar’ at the palace, on the festival of
Nauroza [New Year’s Day] and so on. [17]
In the middle of Jan 1562, Akbar made a pilgrimage to the tomb of
Khwaja Mainuddin Chisti of Ajmir. On the way, Raja Bihari Mal of Amber
entered a peace treaty with Akbar and, according to the said custom,
Raja Bihari Mal offered him the hand of his daughter in marriage to
Akbar. However, the princess later on became the mother of emperor
Jahangir.
Even the Muslim women were not safe from Akbar’s lust. In 1564, Akbar
compelled one Shaikh of Delhi to divorce his wife in his favour. [18]
Akbar had an eye on Bairam Khan’s wife and married her soon after
Bairam Khan was murdered. Akbar did not hesitate to have caused this
violent and tragic end of his erstwhile guardian for the satiation of
his lust. In this context, it should also be mentioned that, in 1558,
when Bairam was more than 50, he married his 19 year old cousin Salima
begam. Meanwhile, Bairam was sacked and Akbar asked him to go to Mecca
and on his way to Mecca, Bairam Khan was assassinated on 31st January,
1561, at Patan by some Afghans. Akbar was then 19 year old and hence
Akbar and Salima Begam were of the same age. [19] This is a fine
example of fight between two lechers, just like fighting of dogs in
their mating season.
In this way Akbar, with the army of forcefully abducted women, created
a harem of 5000 inmates, in the capital city of Agra . While
commenting on it, V A Smith writes, “The imperial harem constituted a
town in itself. No less than 5000 women dwelt within the walls, and
each of them had a separate apartment. The maintenance and control of
such a multitude of women necessitated a carefully devised system of
internal administration and the organization of adequate arrangements
for discipline. The inmates were divided into sections, each under a
female commandant (daroga), and due provision was made for the supply
from the ranks of clerks to keep the accounts. A strict method of
check was applied to the expenditure, which was on a large
scale.” [20] Smith further continues, “The inside of the enclosure was
protected by armed female guards. Eunuchs watched on the outside of
it, and beyond them again were companies of faithful Rajputs, while
troops of other classes posted at a greater distance gave further
security.” [20]
Though, following Abul Fazl, Smith wrote above that ‘each of the
inmates of the harem were provided with a separate apartment’, but in
Agra there is not even a single building with 5000 separate rooms. So,
the above conclusion is a lie. One can, therefore, easily understand
in what wretched condition these unfortunate women were condemned to
live. Itmad-ud-daula, the father-in-law of Jehangir, has thrown some
light on some other features of the inmates of this harem. If someone
had given birth to a female child, she was saved because in future she
could be used as a sex-slave. But, if anyone happened to give birth to
a male child, he used to be murdered or blinded as in future he could
never pose a threat to the throne. It may be mentioned here that,
another lecher Ferozshah Tughloq, used to get the private part of the
women of his harem sewed, to be sure that they were not having sex
with other man.
However, Akbar’s lechery was not confined to his harem of 5000 women
and P N Oak, while commenting on this matter, writes, “Despite an
exclusive harem of 5,000 women, and all the virgin prostitutes of the
realm whose virginity, as Abul Fazl tells us, was at Akbar’s exclusive
royal command and could not be violated without special permission by
any courtier, the honour of the wives of noblemen and courtiers was
itself always subject to Akbar’s sexy pleasure.” [21] Akbar did not
spare even the wives of the ministers and nobles of his court, if they
happened to draw attention of Akbar’s lust.
To highlight this point, Abul Fazl writes, “Whenever Begams or wives
of nobles, or other women of chaste character, desire to be presented,
they first notify their wish to the servants of the seraglio and wait
for reply. From thence they send their requests to the officers of the
palace after which those who are eligible (sic) are permitted to enter
the harem. Some women of rank obtained permission to remain there for
a whole month.” [2] The above passage is a clear admission that Akbar
used to compel wives of courtiers and noblemen, toward whom he felt
sufficiently attracted to remain within his harem at least for a month
at a time.
To expose another feature of Akbar’s lechery, V A Smith writes,
“Grimon’s statement that Akbar had confined himself to one wife and
distributed his other consorts among the courtiers is not directly
confirmed from other sources.” [22] “This adds a new dimension to
Akbar’s lechery because it reveals how women were considered as mere
chattel to be freely exchanged among Akbar and his courtiers in a
continuous round of sex-traffic.” [19] “Then there was the notorious
institution of Meena Bazar, according to which on New Year’s Day, the
women of all households had to be paraded before Akbar for his
choosing.” [19]
It has been mentioned earlier that Muhammad Ghori, Qutb-ud-din and
Iltutmish were sodomites. It has also been mentioned that Babur,
Akbar’s grandfather, has given a lengthy description of this sodomic
infatuation for a male sweetheart in hia auto-biography. Humayun was
no different. Therefore, sodomy was also a precious service of Akbar’s
own family… Though, perhaps, Akbar did not engage in sodomy, but many
believe that he allowed” it to be practiced by his servants, courtiers
and sycophats. Abul Fazal in Ain-e-Akbari provides accounts of some
such acts which are too disgusting to even mention. Such perverse
gratification was prevalent during the entire Mughal rule, including
Akbar’s times.
References:
[1] V. A. Smith, Akbar the Great Mogul, Oxford Clarendon Press, 32..
[2] Akbar The Great A Tyrannical Monarch –
http://www.hindunet.org/hindu_history/modern/akbar_ppg.html
[3] V. A. Smith, Akbar the Great Mogul, ibid, 7..
[4] P N Oak, Islamic Havoc in Indian History, Published by A Ghosh,
298.
[5] P N Oak, Islamic Havoc in Indian History, ibid, 294.
[6] V. A. Smith, Akbar the Great Mogul, ibid, 189.
[7] J Todd, Annals and Antiquities of Rajasthan, 2 volumes, Routledge
and Kegan Paul Ltd., London , 1957, II, 259.
[8] V. A. Smith, Akbar the Great Mogul, ibid, 58.
[9] S J Monserrate, “The Commentary,” translated from original Latin
by J.S. Hoyland, annotated by S.Banerjee, Humphrey Milford, Oxford
Univ. Press, London , (1922),.27.
[10] V. A. Smith, Akbar the Great Mogul, ibid, 242.
[11] V. A. Smith, Akbar the Great Mogul, ibid, 47.
[12] V. A. Smith, Akbar the Great Mogul, ibid, 212..
[13] J M Shelat, “Akbar,” Bharatiya Vidya Bhawan, 1964, Bombay . , 90.
[14] V. A. Smith, Akbar the Great Mogul, ibid, 31.
[15] Blochmann, H., “Ain-e-Akbari,” translation of Abul Fazal’s
Persian text, 2nd Edition, Bibliotheca Indica Series, published by
the Royal Asiatic Society of Bengal., 276.
[16] P N Oak, Islamic Havoc in Indian History, ibid, 300.
[17] V. A. Smith, Akbar the Great Mogul, ibid, 99.
[18] V. A. Smith, Akbar the Great Mogul, ibid, 47.
[19] P N Oak, Islamic Havoc in Indian History, ibid, 301.
[20] V. A. Smith, Akbar the Great Mogul, ibid, 359.
[21] P N Oak, Islamic Havoc in Indian History, ibid, 300.
[22] V. A. Smith, Akbar the Great Mogul, ibid, 185.
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages